Yeah I understand, I wrote an essay on Sun Jian for my history coursework whilst also writing some articles for Plunged 3K's wiki and then realised that what I had written in both places was very similar! I ran and informed my teacher after a sleepless night in case he was going to accuse me of plagiarism!

A bit late to the party, but glad you heard from the Good Dr. himself and got some clarification.

As far as primary sources go, the SGZ is as good as it gets. Each of the three kingdoms had an imperial historical office whose job was to produce records of what happened in the kingdom. When Jin absorbed Shu and Wu, those documents (some of them not quite done) got shipped over to the north as well. Chen Shou was the closest person we know who had access to all the original primary sources (since the originals have not survived). He put together the accounts as best as he could, sometimes having to pick and choose from conflicting accounts (think about the "fake news" phenomenon we're dealing with today--if it's *this hard* for people now, who have access to a great number of instant sources, to figure out what's true and what's not, how much harder would it be back in Chen Shou's time?).

Later compilations of history, such as the ZZTJ, drew largely from the SGZ.

Pei's notes are supposed to be *supplemental* to the original text and must be considered in the con...text of the SGZ text. Some of his notes are for clarifying Chen Shou's text, or pointing out places where there was internal inconsistency (or just inserting his personal opinion...). Other notes are meant to provide additional information or perspective (some sources are obviously more legit than others; back in his day he'd assume that his readers would be able to tell which ones were the equivalent of the National Enquirer).

Obviously, just as with all historical records, it's necessary to understand the context of the work (for example, Chen Shou was obliged to elevate Wei over the other kingdoms because of the political situation he was in), and understand what the sources of errors, omissions, and intentional mistakes could be (incomplete primary materials, the whole civil war thing, him being too close still to the time of the events to have a full perspective, etc.).

If you can read Chinese, you might want to look for Chinese books/research articles citing or discussing the SGZ as a historical source.

(Glad you didn't end up comparing the SGZ and SGYY--it's done before and it's a huge project. I have a copy of the SGYY with side-by-side text comparing with the SGZ accounts, and it's huge, but it's not even complete. )

PS: I find it strange that your prof would say that the SGZ/commentaries are "highly fictional" rather than "inaccurate". Very different terms with very different implications. You may want to force some clarification out from him.

PPS: You will also want a definition of "historical source", and make sure your thesis addresses exactly that. I mean, you can kind of argue that it's not a *primary source*, since it's been processed and compiled by Chen Shou. Also, "fiction" has an element of intentionality--you have to be actively making stuff up (or be heavily deluded) for your work to be considered fiction. I have read biographies where I know the events or situations weren't quite as they're described in the book, but I wouldn't call those fictions--I would call them "accounts of history by some very confused/egotistical/narrow-minded/inexperienced people". If the SGZ was written to be a historical record, it is a historical record.

The SGZ is also unlike the other official Histories in the Chinese canon, because it only consists of biographies. Could this be a source for your professor's claim?

I wonder if your professor could be thinking about the Jinshu instead. It is more like a traditional history, compiled by a team of historians and containing both biographies and timelines and records of cultural things, but it a) contains some pretty outlandish magicky things (see my translation of the Jinshu's biography of the monk Fotudeng), b) has an obsession with gossipy things that really belong to a tabloid magazine, c) contains lots of inconsistencies, particularly with dates, and d) there was an intention for the work to be a Lesson to the Tang court (effect much amplified in the ZZTJ--I mean, look at the title of that book).

But since your prof had raised that question, you really should get a definition from him and work with that. Always always answer the question.

"Whatever you do, don't fall off the bridge! It'll be a pain to try to get back up again." - Private, DW 8

Quick background, I'm writing my MA thesis right now on the subject of the Three Kingdoms in the historical aspect. As such, besides sources such as Rafe de Crespigny's works, I had to delve deep into sources written in Chinese, and, of course, Sanguozhi and the annotations by Pei Songzhi. I'm not an expert when it comes to classcal Chinese, but I can read it to some degree and spent a fair amount of time researching the chapters that I wanted to use.Now here's a problem I faced: My thesis supervisor argues that neither 三国志 nor 三国志注 can be treated as historical sources and that they are highly fictional, which left me flabbergasted. While I do know that modern historians argue over whether or not Chen Shou was biased in his biographies and I know that Pei Songzhi himself disputed some of the stories he annotated, I always considered Sanguozhi as the key historical source to the events that happened during the Three Kingdoms period.So here's my question: Am I right or is my supervisor right? If I'm right, how to prove it? Are there any reputable sources, especially in Chinese, that I could use to prove I'm right? If I'm wrong, what other sources could I use?To clarify: I mostly used Sanguozhi and the annotations when writing about Lü Bu, Guan Yu, Zhuge Liang and Sima Yi.

Thank you for your input!

I want to say something about your problems. I'm Chinese,and I will try my best to express what I think in English. In Qing Dynasty, the government had chosen 24 history books as "almost real history". The 24 books are translated as the Twenty-Four Histories. Sanguo Zhi is among them. In China's historians, 三国志 and 三国志注 are both historical sources.I think you are right.

In my view, especially 三国志注, could be treated as historical sources. You may reference 汉书 and 后汉书 to understand more about the Three Kingdoms Time. Best way is buying book in "modern Vernacular Chinese", and contrast with book in classical Chinese. That is because even Chinese feel not easy when reading book in classical Chinese.

About how to prove it. Hmm.........It is not easy to prove something itself is truth. If just saying something about "Twenty-Four Histories" could not persuade your thesis supervisor, thing will become complicated. Maybe reading some Chinese authoritative literature and find something to prove it. I say it's "not easy to prove", because in China it is accepted that 三国志 and 三国志注 could be treated as histories. Maybe you could ask Chinese professors for help.You said "Are there any reputable sources", hmm...................... how to answer you.... It is accepted that ...Yes, even high school students know it.

If you really really really need to prove it , one way is reading 后汉书 , 三国志 and 三国志注 to confirm each other(I mean comparing with each other), and another way is ....... changing your topic

At last, if your thesis supervisor is Chinese, maybe he has some special point of view to say that. If not, I think you are right.(Even your thesis supervisor is Chinese, personally, I think you are right.)

-----------------Please forgive me for my poor English. I'm still preparing for the IELTS, and my goal is 6.5

-------------------------------------------editglad that you have received replay from Rafe de Crespigny. He is even very famous in China.